Stanton v R [2024] NSWCCA 185

Stanton v R [2024] NSWCCA 185

The aggregate sentence imposed was well within the available range considering the objective seriousness, maximum penalties, and significant aggravating factors. The applicant's youth and deprivation reduced his moral culpability, but community protection and general deterrence were paramount. Comparative sentencing for co-offenders was properly considered, and any disparity was justified by differences in offence and criminal history; there was no manifest excess or justifiable sense of grievance.

Parties
Applicant: Blake Stanton; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Sentence, Manifestly Excessive Sentence, Disparity Between Co Offender Sentences, Aggregate Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Sentencing Considerations (youth, Deprivation, Community Protection, General Deterrence, Remorse, Rehabilitation)
Criminal Law Appeals Against Sentence Manifestly Excessive Sentence Disparity Between Co Offender Sentences Aggregate Sentencing Objective Seriousness Sentencing Considerations (youth, Deprivation, Community Protection, General Deterrence, Remorse, Rehabilitation)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blake Stanton

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance at the lack of disparity between his sentence and that of his co-offender

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence imposed was well within the available range considering the objective seriousness, maximum penalties, and significant aggravating factors. The applicant's youth and deprivation reduced his moral culpability, but community protection and general deterrence were paramount. Comparative sentencing for co-offenders was properly considered, and any disparity was justified by differences in offence and criminal history; there was no manifest excess or justifiable sense of grievance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Extend time for the applicant to appeal to 26 July 2024.
  • Grant leave to appeal.